Jon Stewart exposes Apple stock manipulation

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 155
    rtdunhamrtdunham Posts: 428member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post


    They certainly aren't. I haven't seen a hard-hitting interview like that in a while. Jon Stewart demonstrated he's more of a journalist than most other "reporters" out there. Honestly, only he and the staff of 60 Minutes really ask any serious questions anymore. One would hope that what happened last night would be a wake-up call to the other networks, especially considering what kind of ratings it probably got. Good journalism attracts eyeballs.



    But I bet nobody in charge of the other "news" shows will pay attention....



    I spent the first half of my life as a conscientious journalist, the second half as a (also conscientious) publisher. I try to consume the news critically, whether it's in print or broadcast or those internet thingies.



    I've liked CNN's reporting on most issues. They seem to work to present both sides. BUT...



    ...a of couple things lately rankle:



    1) Lou Dobbs is like one of those 30s or 40s radio demagogues, and has no more respect for a dissenting opinion than a dictator has. But what really rankles me is the subservience CNN's legitimate reporters show to him when they are brought in on his show to present a news bite to prompt his commentary. They say "a", and Dobbs proceeds, with little regard for the facts in the reporter's presentation, to describe how "b" is a travesty, mocks democracy, and is in an idiot (or idiotic idea). He then throws it back to the reporter, who stands there with a look on his/her face that seems to say "you are such an idiot but i dare not point out anything factually about the story that would expose you as such." Sometimes their reactions are modest, other times i can almost hear their teeth grating. But never--never--can i respect them for their silent complicity.



    2) John King interviewed the GOP's new spokesperson Cantor, and asked him a series of short, pointed questions. Cantor used each question to launch a long canned speech expressing his view of issues related and (mostly) unrelated, praising his party's righteousness and never answering the question that was asked. What griped me was that King never interrupted to force Cantor back on topic, and never followed up afterward by simply asking--again--the pointed question. Hell, I learned that in newsrooms before I was 20. If they just want to give Cantor (or a Dem spokesperson--the knife cuts both ways) free air time, do it and say what you're doing. But if you're supposed to be reporter asking questions WE media consumers want answered, then dammit, do it. CNN's Campbell Brown did that in an interview several months ago and was harshly criticised for it--for doing her job! The network almost apologized for it, and that was as embarrassing as the GOP's Michael Steele apologizing for suggesting Rush didn't walk on water. Brown's got more balls than any of them.



    Except for Stewart, and his "titanium nads" as one poster here put it. Thank god he's there. How sad for the rest of the media that that's one of the few places hard questioning comes from.



    peace out
  • Reply 102 of 155
    gmhutgmhut Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    If you don't want to get ripped off by a financial advisor, don't use one. Decide for yourself what companies to invest in. If they don't have our money they can't play these leveraging games.



    Missing the point a little. That sounds very nice and virtuous. The problem is, aside from tiers of risk, most of us don't get to decide the specifics of where are 401ks and such are invested, nor should we even try. Most of us, including myself, don't know enough about the market to mess around in it. In reality, the success rates of the majority of experts who supposedly know what they're doing is about the same as dumb luck. Even the most phenomenally successful ones lose big at times. Even Warren Buffet lost a huge chunk—don't worry though, he'll be just fine. The rest of Shome's, not so much. Don't want your 401k money in the market? Take it out and see what happens to it. Penalties and taxes. Sure, you can transfer money within it into a money market or similar without taking it out of the 401k. But then, you have basically taken that 20-30% loss and never get it back. You are basically selling your stocks hovering around the tanking point—getting out at the bottom—buying high and selling low. Unless your close to retirement, I think you're still better off leaving your money in your 401k and hope you will get at least a portion of the value back when things turn around, and they will, they always do. However, unless there is another bubble of some sort for which the timing of works in our favor, I doubt many of us will get it all back.



    The point is, our retirements are swirling around in the same sea of money that all these sharks are swimming in. The "dumb money" Cramer is talking about is the money belonging to investors who are not frothing the market or scheming as he described in the clip. That includes everyone who has retirement funds based on stocks.
  • Reply 103 of 155
    gmhutgmhut Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post


    I spent the first half of my life as a conscientious journalist, the second half as a (also conscientious) publisher. I try to consume the news critically, whether it's in print or broadcast or those internet thingies.



    I've liked CNN's reporting on most issues. They seem to work to present both sides. BUT...



    But a couple things lately rankle:



    1) Lou Dobbs is like one of those 30s or 40s radio demagogues, and has no more respect for a dissenting opinion than a dictator has. But what really rankles me is the subservience CNN's legitimate reporters show to him when they are brought in to present news on a topic. They say "a"; Dobbs proceeds, with little regard for the facts in the reporter's presentation, to describe how "b" is a travesty, mocks democracy, and is in an idiot (or idiotic idea). He usually ends with some sort of question to the reporter, and the reporter stands there with a look on his/her face of "you are such an idiot but i dare not say anything now that would expose you as such." Sometimes their reaction's modest, other times i can almost hear their teeth grating. But never--never--can i respect them for their implicity.



    2) John King interviewed the GOP's new spokesperson Cantor, and asked him a series of short, pointed questions. Cantor used each question to launch a long canned speech expressing his view of issues related and unrelated, and praising his party's righteousness. What griped me was that King never interrupted to force Cantor back on topic, and never followed up afterward by simply asking--again--the pointed question. Hell, I learned to do that before I was 20 years old. If they just want to give Cantor (or a Dem spokesperson--the knife cuts both ways) free air time, do it and say what you're doing. But if you're supposed to be reporter asking questions WE the media consumers want answered, then dammit, do it. CNN's Campbell Brown did that in an interview several months ago and was harshly criticised for it--for doing her job! The network almost apologized for it, and that was as embarrassing as the GOP committee chairman's apologizing for suggesting Rush didn't walk on water. Brown's got more balls than any of them.



    Except for Stewart. Thank god he's there. How sad for the rest of the media that that's where hard questioning comes from.



    peace out



    I couldn't agree more. Dobb's calls himself an independent so he can sit on the side lines and yell, "Boo" at both sides. It's as if Archie Bunker, lost his accent, improved his vocabulary a bit, and got his own show on CNN.
  • Reply 104 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post


    I spent the first half of my life as a conscientious journalist, the second half as a (also conscientious) publisher. I try to consume the news critically, whether it's in print or broadcast or those internet thingies.



    I've liked CNN's reporting on most issues. They seem to work to present both sides. BUT...



    ...a of couple things lately rankle:



    1) Lou Dobbs is like one of those 30s or 40s radio demagogues, and has no more respect for a dissenting opinion than a dictator has. But what really rankles me is the subservience CNN's legitimate reporters show to him when they are brought in on his show to present a news bite to prompt his commentary. They say "a", and Dobbs proceeds, with little regard for the facts in the reporter's presentation, to describe how "b" is a travesty, mocks democracy, and is in an idiot (or idiotic idea). He then throws it back to the reporter, who stands there with a look on his/her face that seems to say "you are such an idiot but i dare not point out anything factually about the story that would expose you as such." Sometimes their reactions are modest, other times i can almost hear their teeth grating. But never--never--can i respect them for their silent complicity.



    2) John King interviewed the GOP's new spokesperson Cantor, and asked him a series of short, pointed questions. Cantor used each question to launch a long canned speech expressing his view of issues related and (mostly) unrelated, praising his party's righteousness and never answering the question that was asked. What griped me was that King never interrupted to force Cantor back on topic, and never followed up afterward by simply asking--again--the pointed question. Hell, I learned that in newsrooms before I was 20. If they just want to give Cantor (or a Dem spokesperson--the knife cuts both ways) free air time, do it and say what you're doing. But if you're supposed to be reporter asking questions WE media consumers want answered, then dammit, do it. CNN's Campbell Brown did that in an interview several months ago and was harshly criticised for it--for doing her job! The network almost apologized for it, and that was as embarrassing as the GOP's Michael Steele apologizing for suggesting Rush didn't walk on water. Brown's got more balls than any of them.



    Except for Stewart, and his "titanium nads" as one poster here put it. Thank god he's there. How sad for the rest of the media that that's one of the few places hard questioning comes from.



    peace out



    But you are drawing a very fine line - you don't like Lou Dobbs because he is tough and pointed, but you also don't like John King because he *isn't* tough and pointed. (BTW, I don't like either guy, just for the record... actually I guess for the same reasons as you.) The larger issue is, there really doesn't seem to be much (if any) investigative reporting coming from anywhere anymore, whether it be CNBC, CNN, whatever. But, when you think about it, can you think of a time when TV stations ever did do investigative reporting?



    What I think is missing is fairness - you have to be pointed, you can express your point of view, but you also have to be fair. You can't resort to intimidation or filibustering, or outright deception (at least, not if your goal is to arrive at the truth.) That's arguing, not interviewing; and we all know that arguments are usually won on emotion or tricks, and very rarely on the facts. A great example of good interviewing was Bill Maher's recent interview with T. Boone Pickens, where he told "T" to his face that he was guilty of slander in the swiftboating case - but then he sat quitely and gave "T" all the time he needed to answer. (At least, that's how I remember it, but I could be wrong.) Compare that to Stewart, who introduced Cramer as someone who belongs in prison, whipped the crowd up into a blood-thirsty frenzy, then would point his finger at Cramer, tell him he's furious, accuse him of some terrible crime, allow the crowd to pile on, then give Cramer no more than a few seconds to answer before cutting him off and jumping on to a completely different topic. He filibustered Cramer throughout the interview, and switftboated him with that video. Stewart clearly (and I'm sure not accidentally) left the vast majority who saw that interview with the impression that he (or his staff) uncovered some secret footage where Cramer was teaching underlings how to rob little old granny's of their retirement money. Numerous posts to this thread prove that that was precisely what people believed after seeing that interview. The vast majority also believe that Cramer was discussing actual trades that he made when he was talking about apple and rimm, but he wasn't. Again, people believe this because of Stewart's irresponsible reporting. The truth is that that video was made for Cramer's website (thestreet.com), where anyone with the inclination had a chance to see it. (You may have had to be a subscriber, I don't know, but the point is there was nothing secret about it.) The video was made long after Cramer left the trading business, and after he had already become a TV personality, so he knew perfectly well that the video would be in the public domain in very short order. And anyone who actually watches Cramer is very familiar with what he is discussing in that interview - exactly the same topic he discusses on his show frequently - what goes on in the hedge fund business, especially now that the SEC (according to Cramer) has relaxed enforcement. He has also written an entire book on the subject. The fact is, he wasn't teaching hedge fundies how to rob people - they already know that in far, far greater detail than Cramer shows in that interview; rather, he was informing anyone who cared to listen on what actually goes on. But you wouldn't know that if you relied on Stewart for your information. Stewart, as he himself admits candidly, is a snake-oil salesman. He has an agenda. He is no better than Lou Dobbs or Rush Limbaugh. He is one of them.



    One thing I think everyone should now agree on - Stewart, like it or not, *IS* a reporter now, not a comedian, because that's what people think he is (or both). Far too many people rely on him (some, such as yourself, even "thank god" for him), and this is a consequence of his own making. This means he can no longer hide behind the shield of "I'm just a comedian, I'm not responsible for what I say." He does have a responsibility to the truth, even if it isn't funny, or doesn't support his agenda.
  • Reply 105 of 155
    gmhutgmhut Posts: 242member
    beelzebub,



    It seems to me that you are picking and choosing. It seems like someone you like (Cramer) got called out for his actions and you don't like it. Stewart didn't lie. He simply presented Cramer with his own words, and basically said, "This is what you said. What up with that?" He didn't filibuster, Cramer just chose to not talk as much as he could have. Stewart gave Cramer a chance to speak in his own defense. Did Cramer suck at defending himself. Yes. Is that Sewart's fault? No. I think it's because his role was indefensible, that's why Cramer was inept at defending it. Just because Stewart didn't like what this guy was up to doesn't mean he wasn't fair in confronting him.



    If you have a half hour talk show, and your guest makes a few statements in response to your questions (some of which were non answers) you can't just sit there and stare at the guy with dead air filling the show with silence. The host has to keep the show going. If the guest won't answer your questions with more than incomplete or evasive answers, you have to keep asking them until he does. If that results in the interviewer talking more than the interviewee, that is how the time will be taken up, that's the interviewee's fault. The media is made of human beings. Yelling matches where everyone tries to shout each other down is unproductive, but that wasn't what happened in this interview. It is unreasonable to expect them to be monotone deadpan robots as if that somehow equals impartiality, it doesn't. If you are expecting the people involved in our current economic woes to be treated with kid gloves, or that everyone should get together and sing kumbay so we can all hug it out, that is not journalism and it doesn't serve the public.



    The public deserves more than the media holding these peoples hands and asking them softball questions. Cramer chose his public role, the public has made him a wealthy man. He owes it to the public to justify his actions. If he can't do that, he deserves public derision. These are serious issues and it's time to play hardball. It can be done fairly, but it should be done and it doesn't have to be pretty. Cramer IS the media. Stewart IS the media. What we saw was the media talking to itself, hopefully in an effort to hold itself accountable. That's a good thing.
  • Reply 106 of 155
    bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 716member
    I like O'Reilly. He often has both sides on and allows time for back and forth. I agree that he overpowers his guests from time to time, but I appreciate hearing arguments on both sides. Most other programs don't do this as much.



    My main beef is when they have on someone brilliant like Stephen Moore and don't give him very much time to articulate his point. I know they've done studies that show viewer's attention spans have decreased markedly, but I'm not one of those tested.



    I'd prefer a whole hour show with only a few guests, with ample time to debate or explain.



    As far as those studies go... Try it my way. it works for Oprah.
  • Reply 107 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GMHut View Post


    beelzebub,



    It seems to me that you are picking and choosing.



    You're confusing me with Jon Stewart.



    Quote:

    It seems like someone you like (Cramer) got called out for his actions and you don't like it. Stewart didn't lie. He simply presented Cramer with his own words, and basically said, "This is what you said. What up with that?" He didn't filibuster, Cramer just chose to not talk as much as he could have. Stewart gave Cramer a chance to speak in his own defense. Did Cramer suck at defending himself. Yes. Is that Sewart's fault? No.



    Agreed.



    Quote:

    I think it's because his role was indefensible, that's why Cramer was inept at defending it.



    That's precisely what all demagogues want you to think. If a guy can't answer a complex question in two seconds, he's guilty as charged, off with his head.



    Quote:

    Just because Stewart didn't like what this guy was up to doesn't mean he wasn't fair in confronting him.



    I think you need to rewatch it, and try to do so with an open mind. (I'm not being snide, I mean that as unsnidely as I can.) If the goal is to get at the truth, that clearly is NOT what Stewart was trying to do. He was looking to place blame, not discover the truth. In particular, pay attention to the part where Stewart adamantly insists that he is NOT fair, and that it is not is job to be fair. When Cramer sheepishly tries to say that he is fair, Stewart reasserts that he is not. Sure, there was some element of kidding here, but there was at least as much an element of a obstinate rejection of responsibility. Stewart needs to keep that safety-net that, when he sticks his neck out, and it turns out he was wrong, he can always fall back on "I'm just a comedian".



    And, you are committing what Stewart would call a lie of omission, in that you are right to say that he confronts Cramer with his own words, but wrong to omit that he quotes Cramer grossly out of context, to make it look like Cramer is doing something he is NOT doing, then adds his own (false) context by saying "I want the Cramer on TV to protect me from THAT Cramer." When, in fact "THAT" Cramer was doing precisely that. Stewart just wasn't listening. You, like many, seem to think that the Cramer in the video stewart showed was somehow not the same Cramer that is on TV. If you watched mad money, you would know that's not the case. Cramer is telling people what goes on, and making it as public as he can. This is precisely and specifically what Jon Stewart says he wants Cramer to do, yet accuses him of not doing. But, it wouldn't matter either way, would it, since Stewart clearly does not watch Cramer? How can Cramer protect Stewart if Stewart isn't even watching?



    Quote:

    If you have a half hour talk show, and your guest makes a few statements in response to your questions (some of which were non answers) you can't just sit there and stare at the guy with dead air filling the show with silence. The host has to keep the show going. If the guest won't answer your questions with more than incomplete or evasive answers, you have to keep asking them until he does.



    But that isn't what happened. At no time did Stewart re-ask the same question.



    Quote:

    If that results in the interviewer talking more than the interviewee, that is how the time will be taken up, that's the interviewee's fault. The media is made of human beings. Yelling matches where everyone tries to shout each other down is unproductive,



    But that's exactly what Stewart was doing. How many times did Stewart shove his finger and the f-bomb in Cramer's face, in a manner that no one can pretend was just kidding around? From your point of view, it may not have looked that way, because you agree with Stewart, so you aren't really judging him, you're rooting for him. You're right that if Cramer says nothing, then Stewart has to go on, but numerous times throughout that interview Cramer was speaking, or trying to speak, and Stewart simply cut him off. There's one kind of funny point in the interview where Cramer opens his mouth and barely gets out one very short vowel before Stewart shuts him up and immediately moves to the next point. And you are wrong to say that Stewart was trying to force Cramer to answer one specific question - he was doing just the opposite - he would ask one question, Cramer would try to answer, then he would cut him off and move on to a completely different topic. And I'm not talking about the first segment (which wasn't even shown on TV) - they were both cordial enough in that segment. The tongue-lashing begins in the second segment and continues through to the end. Tongue-lashing isn't dialog or interviewing, it's, well, tongue-lashing. No truth can be uncovered that way, and no journalist with any claim of integrity would do that.



    Quote:

    but that wasn't what happened in this interview. It is unreasonable to expect them to be monotone deadpan robots as if that somehow equals impartiality, it doesn't. If you are expecting the people involved in our current economic woes to be treated with kid gloves, or that everyone should get



    We are ALL involved in our current economic woes. Cramer didn't cause this. Neither did CNBC. And that really is at the heart of it all. We need a scapegoat, and Stewart has bequeathed that role on CNBC, and especially Cramer. But, why not Bloomberg? Why not the wall street journal? I think a lot of people just don't want to admit to themselves that they weren't paying attention to their money. After all, ratings prove that almost no one watches CNBC. Even fewer people watch Bloomberg or read the WSJ. So it doesn't matter how much warning they did or didn't give. People don't want to admit that they subscribed to the notion of "buy-and-hold" (as Stewart's mother did), and they got hurt bad. But, Cramer is absolutely not the purveyor of the buy-and-hold myth - it's a myth he excoriates frequently on his show. It's one of his major philosophical disagreements with the bluebeards, particularly Warren Buffet.



    Quote:

    together and sing kumbay so we can all hug it out, that is not journalism and it doesn't serve the public.



    That's not what I said. But thank you for confirming that Stewart is doing journalism, or at least that how he is now perceived. Hence, standards apply. Standards that Stewart obstinately refuses to accept.



    Quote:

    The public deserves more than the media holding these peoples hands and asking them softball questions. Cramer chose his public role, the public has made him a wealthy man. He owes it to the public to justify his actions.



    WHAT ACTIONS?!?!?!? WHAT CRIME HAS HE COMMITTED?!? SOMEBODY JUST SAY IT? PLEASE? Every time I ask, the response is always "read the article", or "you're not too bright, are you?", or that I am a "day-trader whose knowledge of technology is ZERO". (?!?) Somebody please just mention one specific crime, and show some evidence that it actually happened. And I mean something substantial - double-parking doesn't cut it - something that could explain how Cramer is more responsible for the current economic mess than you or I. The best that I could find was Stewart's claim that Cramer knew what was going on and didn't report it, but that simply isn't the case. Cramer has reported on this stuff endlessly (that's precisely what he was doing in the very video stewart showed), and did tell people to get any money they would need over the next 5 years out of the stock market a long time ago. Cramer reported what he knew, or at least enough. (I obviously have no idea just how much he knew, but he said to get out many times.) But, he doesn't have subpoena power, nor clairvoyance, nor is it a crime (or character flaw, or unethical) for him to not have these things.
  • Reply 108 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post


    2) John King interviewed the GOP's new spokesperson Cantor, and asked him a series of short, pointed questions. Cantor used each question to launch a long canned speech expressing his view of issues related and (mostly) unrelated, praising his party's righteousness and never answering the question that was asked. What griped me was that King never interrupted to force Cantor back on topic, and never followed up afterward by simply asking--again--the pointed question. Hell, I learned that in newsrooms before I was 20.



    I don't think it's anything special to journalism training. Most people learn how to have a discussion when they are children, and how to repeatedly ask a question if it isn't answered. Just this morning my neighbor's kids (aged 5 and 7) were having an argument where one yelled, "You didn't answer my question" several times. After a few minutes, he got the answer he wanted, and said "Finally you bothered to answer; could've saved an hour". Very young children are very good about asking "Why?" a zillion times. The media just try to be too polite.
  • Reply 109 of 155
    ttupperttupper Posts: 39member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    WHAT ACTIONS?!?!?!? WHAT CRIME HAS HE COMMITTED?!? SOMEBODY JUST SAY IT? PLEASE.



    While some of the comments here are focused on actual illegal activity and whether or not it occurred, I think that really misses the point. Cramer came off as essentially saying this: "The great thing about the market is, you can do things that are blatantly unethical, blatantly greedy, blatantly selfish, self-involved, deceitful, predatory, and abusive, and blatantly illegal... and you can not only get away with doing it, but get rich in the process."



    In other words, Cramer came off as if he were endorsing a set of practices which are not only illegal, not only really just selfish and evil at their very core... but which are also part of what brought us to the despicable, nation-shattering precipice we are currently staggering along. Remember, Cramer said "And if you are not doing it, maybe you shouldn’t be in the game." In other words, he appeared as if he were endorsing an illegal, onerous, reprehensible set of actions. That's what people are reacting to.



    I'm curious about what you and other Cramer defenders think about that, by the way. Have you considered how it is that these financial engineering schemes work? In a nutshell, what they do isn't wealth creation, it is wealth transfer. When a company like Apple sells stock, uses the money to invest in production, design, research, etc. in order to create real products and pioneer real markets, that is wealth creation. But when someone decimates the company's stock through lies and innuendo so as to short it and make a killing off of the resulting misfortune, that is wealth transfer. More abtly and plainly put, it is more like a kind of stealing, because they are taking money from the retirement accounts of little old ladies and from college tuition accounts, etc. They take the "dumb money" but contribute nothing. In short, it isn't really even a form of "investing, because there is nothing they are intending to build. It in no way benefits our society, or the real economy. It's really very much like piracy, except instead of sailing into port with their 9 inch guns blazing , they dip their hands into your retirement account and quietly walk away with the money you spent a lifetime earning... and they frequently kill the company in the process.



    The thing of it is, THAT is ultimately what Cramer was supporting and suggesting one ought to be into, and that is something worth thinking about.



    Lot's of us just think its just wrong.
  • Reply 110 of 155
    Even though I suspected stock manipulation by Cramer and CNBC and I certainly understand why it's done to make themselves money, I still find it sickly appalling that it's allowed to take place. And they're so proud of themselves to admit it. They are playing with company employees livelihood. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done about these jokers. They're not 100% to blame. If any investor took the time to find out what was really going on at a company, they wouldn't be selling and buying at a moment's notice at every odd rumor being pushed around. Though I suppose it isn't the small investor moving money in and out, it's probably the hedge funds. I hope they lost everything in the bad economy. I haven't heard much from that Scott Moritz character for almost a year. That dude always acted like he was deadly serious about how smart he was in following Apple products. A bunch of whores selling themselves to the highest-paying crooked buyer.
  • Reply 111 of 155
    Everybody who has an interest in integrity in Financial Reporting, or just reporting in general, should listen to this show.



    This is Hell



    in particular, listen to the show from the 22 November 2008.



    Here is a link to the Archives Page.



    or here is a link to download the mp3 file.
  • Reply 112 of 155
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,263member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ttupper View Post


    While some of the comments here are focused on actual illegal activity and whether or not it occurred, I think that really misses the point. Cramer came off as essentially saying this: "The great thing about the market is, you can do things that are blatantly unethical, blatantly greedy, blatantly selfish, self-involved, deceitful, predatory, and abusive, and blatantly illegal... and you can not only get away with doing it, but get rich in the process."



    In other words, Cramer came off as if he were endorsing a set of practices which are not only illegal, not only really just selfish and evil at their very core... but which are also part of what brought us to the despicable, nation-shattering precipice we are currently staggering along. Remember, Cramer said "And if you are not doing it, maybe you shouldn?t be in the game." In other words, he appeared as if he were endorsing an illegal, onerous, reprehensible set of actions. That's what people are reacting to.



    I'm curious about what you and other Cramer defenders think about that, by the way. Have you considered how it is that these financial engineering schemes work? In a nutshell, what they do isn't wealth creation, it is wealth transfer. When a company like Apple sells stock, uses the money to invest in production, design, research, etc. in order to create real products and pioneer real markets, that is wealth creation. But when someone decimates the company's stock through lies and innuendo so as to short it and make a killing off of the resulting misfortune, that is wealth transfer. More abtly and plainly put, it is more like a kind of stealing, because they are taking money from the retirement accounts of little old ladies and from college tuition accounts, etc. They take the "dumb money" but contribute nothing. In short, it isn't really even a form of "investing, because there is nothing they are intending to build. It in no way benefits our society, or the real economy. It's really very much like piracy, except instead of sailing into port with their 9 inch guns blazing , they dip their hands into your retirement account and quietly walk away with the money you spent a lifetime earning... and they frequently kill the company in the process.



    The thing of it is, THAT is ultimately what Cramer was supporting and suggesting one ought to be into, and that is something worth thinking about.



    Lot's of us just think its just wrong.



    All under the guise of "Reality is what you can get away with,''* moniker.



    * Robert Anton Wilson was correct.
  • Reply 113 of 155
    rtdunhamrtdunham Posts: 428member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    I don't think it's anything special to journalism training. Most people learn how to have a discussion when they are children, and how to repeatedly ask a question if it isn't answered. Just this morning my neighbor's kids (aged 5 and 7) were having an argument where one yelled, "You didn't answer my question" several times. After a few minutes, he got the answer he wanted, and said "Finally you bothered to answer; could've saved an hour". Very young children are very good about asking "Why?" a zillion times. The media just try to be too polite.



    you're right, of course. and you said it well. maybe my gripe is that kids do exactly that, except for the ones who can't focus* or are of less than average intelligence. it burns me to perceive reporters for major media outlets as guilty of either of those things, but i see it all too often.



    * -- see Homer Simpson and, "oh! a shiny thing!"
  • Reply 114 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ttupper View Post


    While some of the comments here are focused on actual illegal activity and whether or not it occurred, I think that really misses the point. Cramer came off as essentially saying this: "The great thing about the market is, you can do things that are blatantly unethical, blatantly greedy, blatantly selfish, self-involved, deceitful, predatory, and abusive, and blatantly illegal... and you can not only get away with doing it, but get rich in the process."



    Okay, so if I understand you, you have a problem with his tone, because it is arrogant, greedy and insensitive. Okay, that's fair. As a regular watcher of his show, I think I understand what he is doing there, but I could be completely wrong, and, either way, no one can see it the way I see it if they aren't already familiar with Cramer. I see him as simply describing the system the way it is, and, if you don't like it, too bad. I would call it "sober", "fatalistic", "jaded", "realistic", "this-is-what-you're-up-against-so-don't-play-if-you-don't-think-you-can-win", something along those lines. You're seeing him the way I used to see him, so I'm not going to say you are wrong. My opinion of him has changed, but I may have had it right the first time. But I don't think so. I think, since joined CNBC, he is doing his best to help people, and I think he's doing a good job. Part of why I am defending him is that, while he has gotten some stuff wrong, he called this downturn very early, which turned out to be a very good call - exactly the thing Stewart said he wished Cramer would do, but Stewart refuses to acknowledge that it happened. The bigger reason I am defending him is because I do believe (perhaps wrongly) that he is a good guy who has been incorrectly held up as, if not the cause, the effigy (that's the wrong word, but I think you know what I mean) of our problems. Stewart has made him the catharsis that everyone needed, but stewart picked the wrong guy. But, regardless of who Stewart picked, he wouldn't have been the cause of our current problems (even Madoff isn't the reason we're in this mess), but simply the dartboard. Nonetheless, I am aware that he has many dollar bills to wipe his tears, so I guess I shouldn't be too concerned about him. But when people talk about throwing him in jail with Madoff, that starts to sound very serious.



    Quote:

    In other words, Cramer came off as if he were endorsing a set of practices which are not only illegal, not only really just selfish and evil at their very core... but which are also part of what brought us to the despicable, nation-shattering precipice we are currently staggering along. Remember, Cramer said "And if you are not doing it, maybe you shouldn’t be in the game." In other words, he appeared as if he were endorsing an illegal, onerous, reprehensible set of actions. That's what people are reacting to.



    He's saying that hedge funds shouldn't be in the game (the hedge-fund game, which is, yes, a "f*cking" game - a "most dangerous" game, but a game nonetheless) if hedge funds don't use all the tools available to them. This is the truth. It's not an endorsement, it's a statement of fact. (At least, I assume it is.)



    You can criticize him for having show that seems to encourage people to get into such a dangerous game, but that argument itself is very paternalistic - why shouldn't anyone at least have the right to try if they want to? I think you could make a reasonable argument that only certain people should be allowed into the market - but it would be a very chilling argument. But, it may very well be correct. I hope it isn't, but who knows.



    And it was NOT the hedge funds that brought us to the precipice. It was the banks themselves, who made all of these bad loans.



    Quote:

    I'm curious about what you and other Cramer defenders think about that, by the way. Have you considered how it is that these financial engineering schemes work? In a nutshell, what they do isn't wealth creation, it is wealth transfer. When a company like Apple sells stock, uses the money to invest in production, design, research, etc. in order to create real products and pioneer real markets, that is wealth creation. But when someone decimates the company's stock through lies and innuendo so as to short it and make a killing off of the resulting misfortune, that is wealth transfer.



    I don't know of anyone who would disagree with you here, including Cramer. Cramer has never advocated destroying healthy (or vital) companies through lies and innuendo (or anything else). Quite the opposite - he has been agitating for a long time for a restoration of the uptick rule and banning the SKF, as well as regularly doing expose's on hedge funds practices on his show and in at least one book. Again, that's what he was doing in that video that Stewart showed.



    Quote:

    More abtly and plainly put, it is more like a kind of stealing, because they are taking money from the retirement accounts of little old ladies and from college tuition accounts, etc.



    Eh, sort of. When a scheme is so "successful" that it destroys the system, you are right. But, day-traders who are simply battling each other over a few percentage points over the course of a few hours are not risking granny's 401k, unless granny put her money in a hedge fund. I think what you are getting at is the issue of risk containment/leverage/etc. - I think you would have to agree that the market must have it's risky places, but at the same time, granny has to have some place to put her 401k that is not risky. When the walls between the risky and non-risky parts of the system break down, granny gets f*cked. It is very, very important that those walls are maintained, but risk is where reward comes from, so we need to have some place in the market where people can take risk if they want to. (The apple example you gave is exactly what I am talking about.) This is what the glass-steagal act (yeah, I don't know how to spell it) was supposed to do, but frankly, it's over my pay grade as to whether or not it was working, or whether or not its repeal is at the root of our problems. Some people say it is. Hey, you asked for my opinion, so there it is, FWIW. Also, I thought "the dark knight" was grossly overrated.



    Quote:

    They take the "dumb money" but contribute nothing. In short, it isn't really even a form of "investing, because there is nothing they are intending to build. It in no way benefits our society, or the real economy. It's really very much like piracy, except instead of sailing into port with their 9 inch guns blazing , they dip their hands into your retirement account and quietly walk away with the money you spent a lifetime earning... and they frequently kill the company in the process.



    I agree. Also, I kinda liked Iron Man.



    Quote:

    The thing of it is, THAT is ultimately what Cramer was supporting and suggesting one ought to be into, and that is something worth thinking about.



    Lot's of us just think its just wrong.



    Supporting what? The destruction of companies? Raiding retirement funds? No, I don't think so at all. The whole reason he has been crusading for restoring the uptick rule and the banning of the SKF is because he does NOT support trading that destroys otherwise healthy or necessary companies. "Wealth-destruction" is one of his favorite phrases (I think he even used it in the Stewart interview), and he most certainly does not celebrate it. The clip that Stewart showed shows Cramer talking about how easy it is to manipulate aapl or rimm for a few percentage points (up or down) over the course of a few hours - it does not talk about destroying companies, let alone advocates it. That said, I doubt Cramer believes that people who have their money in stocks are entitled to any guarantees, beyond whatever insurance they have.
  • Reply 115 of 155
    rtdunhamrtdunham Posts: 428member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    But you are drawing a very fine line - you don't like Lou Dobbs because he is tough and pointed, but you also don't like John King because he *isn't* tough and pointed.



    First of all, beelzebob, i don't think we're as far apart in our views as some might guess. You presented some well-reasoned points and I liked that you were willing to listen to others' ideas.



    It's true, I scorned a particular John King interview because he didn't demand answers to pointed questions, and failed to follow up when the interviewee's responses did not even address the points of those questions. Forgive the cliche, but someone has to point out when the king's naked, someone must call authority for its inadequacies, and if not the reporters for major networks, then who?



    But i don't dislike Dobbs because he's tough and pointed: sometimes, he engages me in his argument and wins my admiration for asking tough questions. Then he disappoints by petulantly flaunting his power: He insults his interview subjects as though there's no chance the truth might lie anywhere between their point of view and his (thus my reference to demagogues). In so doing he insults his audience, and for that, too, i dislike his style.



    Bertrand Russell on this subject:



    "The whole problem with the world

    is that fools and fanatics

    are always so certain of themselves,

    but wiser people so full of doubts."



    I see Rush, and Cantor, and Cramer, and Dobbs, and maybe Bill Frist and Nancy Pelosi, too, in that first category. Let's hope Stewart is full of doubts, and stays in that second camp.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    What I think is missing is fairness - you have to be pointed, you can express your point of view, but you also have to be fair. ...



    I couldn't agree more. Here's the standard I often use in judging public figures and radio talk show hosts and the heads of corporations: How would I feel about them being a part of my circle of friends? How would i feel if they were managing my office or my business? In those environments I don't want a know-it-all, i don't want a screamer, i don't want a "my way or the highway kind of guy or gal. I want someone who'll respect others in the group, who won't be a yes-man, someone who shows some intelligence and some character. I think Dobbs would entertain me for about five minutes, and then i'd quickly realize i more admired the receptionist in the front office, the friend i made last month at softball, hell, even my ex-wife. I'm not arguing popularity should be a test, rather, like you, beelzebob, i'm arguing for integrity--and fairness.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    He filibustered Cramer throughout the interview, and switftboated him with that video....



    You're using "swiftboated" to mean "surprised", it seems to me. I don't think that's the meaning of the term. And I'd bet anything Cramer knew that clip or something like it would be used.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    The truth is that that video was made for Cramer's website ... where anyone with the inclination had a chance to see it...The fact is, he wasn't teaching hedge fundies how to rob people - they already know that...rather, he was informing anyone who cared to listen on what actually goes on...



    Several points: Whether or not Cramer knew it could be seen by others doesn't alter the objectionable content. Maybe it's worse because it was brazen and not furtive.



    Second, the argument that he wasn't teaching anyone how to rob people is reminiscent of the pleas people use to defend websites that instruct on bombmaking: "oh, it just tells what people already know," or, "those plans for building a nuclear bomb are from the public record". True, perhaps, but that in no way constitutes a defense.



    Finally, on the stewart/cramer exchange, I'll defer my final opinion until i can listen to the whole broadcast again, as you rightly suggest. As you say, we have to try to view it objectively. Until then, I'll react only to what AI reported in its lead, and in direct quotes which i'll assume for the moment are accurate: "in the clip filmed for The Street, Cramer notes that this practice of 'fomenting the market' is 'actually blatantly illegal, but when you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment.'"



    I think that's endorsing the practice, and I think it's offensive, and I think it's dancing dangerously near the actionable boundaries of law and regulation. Just my opinion. I have not played a public prosecutor on TV.
  • Reply 116 of 155
    rtdunhamrtdunham Posts: 428member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    He's saying that hedge funds shouldn't be in the game (the hedge-fund game, which is, yes, a "f*cking" game - a "most dangerous" game, but a game nonetheless) if hedge funds don't use all the tools available to them. This is the truth. It's not an endorsement, it's a statement of fact. (At least, I assume it is.)



    You can criticize him for having show that seems to encourage people to get into such a dangerous game, but that argument itself is very paternalistic - why shouldn't anyone at least have the right to try if they want to? I think you could make a reasonable argument that only certain people should be allowed into the market - but it would be a very chilling argument. But, it may very well be correct. I hope it isn't, but who knows.



    let me try this: the words in italics are substituted for words regarding stock manipulation, in the text quoted by AI:



    "In the clip filmed for The Street, Cramer notes that this practice of "robbing visitors to the neighborhood at gunpoint" is "actually blatantly illegal, but when you have six days and your (finances) may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to rob people at gunpoint."



    so is he simply warning us to stay out of the neighborhood? Or is he endorsing those with guns (the ability to manipulate stocks) to carry on that "really important" activity?



    And when he says maybe many people simply shouldn't be in the market because they aren't armed with the right knowledge, is that the same as saying, "if you can't return fire you shouldn't drive off your cul-de-sac"? Or as a civilized society do we strive for something better?



    I know that might sound like unfair rhetoric. But I'm trying to shake up you or others who can't see why many of us are dismayed by Cramer's arrogance, and why some have argued it might be criminal. Anyone who dismisses this as mere rhetoric: please support that argument.
  • Reply 117 of 155
    Watched a few Cramer videos today.



    Don't like him, don't trust him. I wouldn't even buy a used book from him.
  • Reply 118 of 155
    ebrunnebrunn Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    Actually, Jim Cramer is the one who broke this news, not Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart just replayed a video that has been on youtube for 4 months, made by theStreet.com and clearly intended for public consumption, to describe to anyone who cared to listen how hedge funds operate. Before jumping to conclusions, watch the video for yourself, without Stewart's filter



    4 months? Try since like December of 2006.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post


    For stock manipulation. Are you unable to comprehend the article or are you unwilling?



    Who's gonna catch him? The SEC?



    They couldnt even catch a guy running a 60 billion dollar ponzi scheme for like 10 years in till 3 months ago.
  • Reply 119 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post


    let me try this: the words in italics are substituted for words regarding stock manipulation, in the text quoted by AI:



    "In the clip filmed for The Street, Cramer notes that this practice of "robbing visitors to the neighborhood at gunpoint" is "actually blatantly illegal, but when you have six days and your (finances) may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to rob people at gunpoint."



    so is he simply warning us to stay out of the neighborhood? Or is he endorsing those with guns (the ability to manipulate stocks) to carry on that "really important" activity?



    He is warning the viewer about the risks involved in day-trading. It's like the old saying, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight." That's how the system works. Cramer didn't invent the system. He's just letting you know what to expect, and to not get in if you can't handle it. At the same time, over and over and over, he has agitated and lobbied to get the system fixed. (Getting the SEC to enforce the laws on the books, banning the skf, restoring the uptick rule, etc.)



    Quote:

    And when he says maybe many people simply shouldn't be in the market because they aren't armed with the right knowledge, is that the same as saying, "if you can't return fire you shouldn't drive off your cul-de-sac"?



    Absolutely you shouldn't be in the market if you don't have the knowledge. Do you really need Cramer to tell you that? And no, it is most definitely NOT the same as saying "if you can't return fire you shouldn't drive off your cul-de-sac"; rather, it is the same as saying - "if you can't return fire, stay out of Somalia."



    Quote:

    Or as a civilized society do we strive for something better?



    What, stocks that only go up? That would be wonderful.



    We strive for areas where people can take risk where they want to, and areas where people can put their money that is safe if they want to. You can't have it both ways - if you want the big returns, you have to accept the risks invovled. The problem here is that the walls broke down - risk spread to areas it wasn't supposed to, and not because of Cramer or the hedge funds. That said, the hedge funds certainly did not help, which, again, is something Cramer has been going on about endlessly.



    Quote:

    I know that might sound like unfair rhetoric.



    (I removed a snide comment). No, it's not unfair, or rhetoric.



    Quote:

    But I'm trying to shake up you or others who can't see why many of us are dismayed by Cramer's arrogance, and why some have argued it might be criminal. Anyone who dismisses this as mere rhetoric: please support that argument.



    I see that you *are* dismayed. I also see that you don't know the truth about how hard Cramer has worked to expose the flaws within the system. Cramer's arrogance has no bearing on how we got where we are, and it most certainly is not criminal. So you don't like his personality. That's totally understandable.
  • Reply 120 of 155
    gmhutgmhut Posts: 242member
    Ok, beelzebub. Here it is. Despite how you spin it, it looks for all the world like Cramer admitted to engaging in shady sh!t by his own account. I'll be honest, it's starting to sound like you might have engaged in similar things to what he warned against/bragged about/suggested others do. Why else would you be dancing such a complicated ridiculous jig trying to defend it? If not forgive me, my sincere apologies. If so, please note that you are in the minority by condoning such. Either way, please also note that anyone who engaged in "frothing the market" is ultimately reaping the final fruits of their labor along with us suckers supplying the dumb money.



    Our economy is in the dumper and most investors (if not all) including the "frothers" are scared sh!tless just like the rest of us. They've lost a lot of what they've plundered. To them I say, welcome to the club they helped create and suck it too. Thanks to those who effectively erased a massive portion of our nation's accumulated and individual wealth (not to mention that of the entire globe). Who's the bigger sucker in this pile of ashes, the fool who gets taken, or the fool who pisses away what he stole because the methods he used to steal it rendered his loot worthless? At the very least we've all learned an extravagantly expensive lesson. Then again, maybe not. Greed is very effective at anesthetizing gray matter from the pain of past mistakes.
Sign In or Register to comment.